Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Article 4 of the agreement signed in 2008 provided for a force to be left behind.
"The Government of Iraq requests the temporary assistance of the United States Forces for the purposes of supporting Iraq in its efforts to maintain security and stability in Iraq, including cooperation in the conduct of operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, outlaw groups, and remnants of the former regime."
So no, the Bush agreement did not require all troops to be out of Iraq by a certain date. That agreement was in effect for three years after signing, and expired on January 1, 2012.
- All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
- All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
Chapter 4 of that agreement did provide for a residual force.
When Bush spoke of leaving Iraq it was with the understanding that a force of Americans would remain to maintain the stability of the country.
When Bush spoke of leaving Iraq it was with the understanding that a force of Americans would remain to maintain the stability of the country.
With the understanding with whom?
Himself?
Iraqis never had that understanding.
It looks like you are flailing about trying to develop a myth that absolves Bush of his failure in Iraq in order to pin the blame for Bush's failures on Obama.?
But your statement about Bush's understanding makes no sense.
Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
It's going to take some time to get a really clear picture, but it's pretty obvious that (a) taking Saddam out of the strategic picture and (2) America's military occupation (not to mention destruction) of so much of the Middle East have caused significant destabilization of the region.
I don't know how you measure its damage, and it's too late turn the clock back now, so all we can do is mitigate for the time being.
A horrible mess.
.
Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
It's going to take some time to get a really clear picture, but it's pretty obvious that (a) taking Saddam out of the strategic picture and (2) America's military occupation (not to mention destruction) of so much of the Middle East have caused significant destabilization of the region.
I don't know how you measure its damage, and it's too late turn the clock back now, so all we can do is mitigate for the time being.
A horrible mess.
.
Yepp. I warned of it 11 years ago and a lot of friends flamed me for it. They don't flame anymore.
Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
It's going to take some time to get a really clear picture, but it's pretty obvious that (a) taking Saddam out of the strategic picture and (2) America's military occupation (not to mention destruction) of so much of the Middle East have caused significant destabilization of the region.
I don't know how you measure its damage, and it's too late turn the clock back now, so all we can do is mitigate for the time being.
A horrible mess.
.
Yepp. I warned of it 11 years ago and a lot of friends flamed me for it. They don't flame anymore.
Yeah, same here.
Not very fun saying "I told you so" in this instance.
.
yes, he did. he negotiated the status of forces agreement that required us to leave when we did.so why didn't he negotiate a status of forces agreement when he had the leverage?
That's a fair question. Maybe that couldn't be done before a certain timeline?
We know Obama didn't do it, but did Bush have the chance prior? Anyone know?
There are no forces, therefore he did not negotiate. Use your head.
you should take your own advice. our forces had to leave because they would not enter into a stay of forces agreement extension. so we had to leave on the date negotiated by baby bush.
I hope that helps.
Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
It's going to take some time to get a really clear picture, but it's pretty obvious that (a) taking Saddam out of the strategic picture and (2) America's military occupation (not to mention destruction) of so much of the Middle East have caused significant destabilization of the region.
I don't know how you measure its damage, and it's too late turn the clock back now, so all we can do is mitigate for the time being.
A horrible mess.
.
Yepp. I warned of it 11 years ago and a lot of friends flamed me for it. They don't flame anymore.
Yeah, same here.
Not very fun saying "I told you so" in this instance.
.
No, it's not, because a lot of good people died.
We already fucked up big time in Gulf War I, when Bush Sr. pulled away from Bagdhad and left 400,000 shia to be murdered at the hands of infuriated Sunnis, shia he has PROMISED he would protect, were they to come around to "our" side. I can imagine that a number of their relatives are now fighting for ISIS. Which is disgusting, because ISIS needs to die, and fast.
We fucked up in the mid-eighties by training and arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. Those Mujahadeen then formed the Taliban, and many of them were in on the ground floor of El Quaida. With OUR weapons, with OUR training.
We propped up a western friendly King in Iran in the 1953 and 1960s, he was hated by his own people. When he became seriously ill and needed heart surgery, a surgery he could have gotten in Canada, former Sec'y of State Henry Kissinger literally begged then Pres. Jimmy Carter to allow that Shah into a Californian hospital for treatment. The Iranians were already screaming that were we to do that, there would be revolution in the Shah's absence. Carter turned Kissinger down many times before finally giving in, a move that sealed the fate of his presidency and ended up in the longest hostage drama in our history.
It's like everywhere we go in the Mid-East, we drop unintentional hand-grenades.
The only true bastion of stability in the ME is Israel and Turkey.
The blame America first crowd. Ron Paul would be proud and you posting from Germany
Bush was looking for about 10,000 (two battalions) to remain in Iraq.
Bush was looking at nothing to remain in Iraq. Maliki made sure of that in 2007. The MNF was told to leave by 1012 and the Iraqis never changed their minds.
Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
It's going to take some time to get a really clear picture, but it's pretty obvious that (a) taking Saddam out of the strategic picture and (2) America's military occupation (not to mention destruction) of so much of the Middle East have caused significant destabilization of the region.
I don't know how you measure its damage, and it's too late turn the clock back now, so all we can do is mitigate for the time being.
A horrible mess.
.
Yepp. I warned of it 11 years ago and a lot of friends flamed me for it. They don't flame anymore.
Yeah, same here.
Not very fun saying "I told you so" in this instance.
.
No, it's not, because a lot of good people died.
We already fucked up big time in Gulf War I, when Bush Sr. pulled away from Bagdhad and left 400,000 shia to be murdered at the hands of infuriated Sunnis, shia he has PROMISED he would protect, were they to come around to "our" side. I can imagine that a number of their relatives are now fighting for ISIS. Which is disgusting, because ISIS needs to die, and fast.
We fucked up in the mid-eighties by training and arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. Those Mujahadeen then formed the Taliban, and many of them were in on the ground floor of El Quaida. With OUR weapons, with OUR training.
We propped up a western friendly King in Iran in the 1953 and 1960s, he was hated by his own people. When he became seriously ill and needed heart surgery, a surgery he could have gotten in Canada, former Sec'y of State Henry Kissinger literally begged then Pres. Jimmy Carter to allow that Shah into a Californian hospital for treatment. The Iranians were already screaming that were we to do that, there would be revolution in the Shah's absence. Carter turned Kissinger down many times before finally giving in, a move that sealed the fate of his presidency and ended up in the longest hostage drama in our history.
It's like everywhere we go in the Mid-East, we drop unintentional hand-grenades.
The only true bastion of stability in the ME is Israel and Turkey.
The blame America first crowd. Ron Paul would be proud and you posting from Germany
You just did idiot... and our "sticking our noises" defeated the Soviet empire and freed millions of people. the U.S. has been responsible for relative stability in the world since the end of WWII. We withdraw we get world wars.The blame America first crowd. Ron Paul would be proud and you posting from Germany
I don't blame America, we didn't have much say.
I blame Bush and the other presidents who kept sticking our noses in the affairs of other sovereign countries whether we liked it or not.
.
if only the U.S. wasn't involved. the world would be such a better place...you're not too bright are you? and Turkey has been taken over by the muslim nutjobs as well genius...Don't you Germans have a problem with those Turkish immigrants?Bushes splendid little war destabilized the area and the blowback may be a mass chemical attack on the US by ISIL with confiscated chemical weapons from Syria.
It's going to take some time to get a really clear picture, but it's pretty obvious that (a) taking Saddam out of the strategic picture and (2) America's military occupation (not to mention destruction) of so much of the Middle East have caused significant destabilization of the region.
I don't know how you measure its damage, and it's too late turn the clock back now, so all we can do is mitigate for the time being.
A horrible mess.
.
Yepp. I warned of it 11 years ago and a lot of friends flamed me for it. They don't flame anymore.
Yeah, same here.
Not very fun saying "I told you so" in this instance.
.
No, it's not, because a lot of good people died.
We already fucked up big time in Gulf War I, when Bush Sr. pulled away from Bagdhad and left 400,000 shia to be murdered at the hands of infuriated Sunnis, shia he has PROMISED he would protect, were they to come around to "our" side. I can imagine that a number of their relatives are now fighting for ISIS. Which is disgusting, because ISIS needs to die, and fast.
We fucked up in the mid-eighties by training and arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. Those Mujahadeen then formed the Taliban, and many of them were in on the ground floor of El Quaida. With OUR weapons, with OUR training.
We propped up a western friendly King in Iran in the 1953 and 1960s, he was hated by his own people. When he became seriously ill and needed heart surgery, a surgery he could have gotten in Canada, former Sec'y of State Henry Kissinger literally begged then Pres. Jimmy Carter to allow that Shah into a Californian hospital for treatment. The Iranians were already screaming that were we to do that, there would be revolution in the Shah's absence. Carter turned Kissinger down many times before finally giving in, a move that sealed the fate of his presidency and ended up in the longest hostage drama in our history.
It's like everywhere we go in the Mid-East, we drop unintentional hand-grenades.
The only true bastion of stability in the ME is Israel and Turkey.
The blame America first crowd. Ron Paul would be proud and you posting from Germany
No, it's the "facts first" crowd, one I am sure you are totally unfamiliar with.
President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda
no, it isn't. you're an idiot.Because Obama and Kerry are inept.
Obama was not President in 2008 when Maliki forced you wimpy whipped Bush into signing an agreement that said all US troops needed to get gone by a set timeline and fixed date.
Obama had nothing absolutely nothing to do with what those two buffoon leaders did in 2007 and 2008.
There was no agreement that said all US troops would be out by a certain date. The SOFA signed by the Bush administration provided for a residual force. I know that breaks your little heart, but that is a fact.
Perhaps you forget that during the campaign Obama said that he planned on removing all combat forces from Iraq? Lo and behold, that became reality, and now when the idiocy blows up in his face, all the left wing dumbasses want to find a way to blame it all on Bush.
When do you get to take the blinders off and realize your messiah is just another left wing dumbass that hasn't a clue about how the real world works?
